Assertions ring hollow
Frankly, I was incredulous when I read your assertions that Baylor has placed values ahead of victories.
Your assertions, to me, ring hollow when the school has allowed Ken Starr to remain in any sort of leadership position, even it can be argued that it is ceremonial. And placing the athletic director on probation, rather than terminating him, is also vexing.
Yes, the football coach paid the price, and should have, but there were serious institutional failures that went well beyond the confines of the football “program.”
Baylor did not go far enough to demonstrate that it clearly understands the egregious nature of what transpired.
Starr should have done more
Sign up for our weekly email newsletter.
Penn State was involved in a football scandal a few years ago. Penn State cleaned house when they fired the president, coaches and the athletic director. Baylor University faces a similar situation, and they have rearranged the furniture.
Coach Art Briles was fired, AD Ian McCaw resigned, but the main man responsible for the university knew all about these charges, and he did nothing.
Baylor President Ken Starr was gung-ho investigating Bill Clinton to have him removed as president of the United States. The same situation comes to Starr’s house, and he sat on his hands. “Guilty” is the word for Starr.
After Joe Paterno was fired he said, “I should have done more.” Ken Starr should have done more.
Reports say Starr was demoted. The man continues at Baylor as a law professor. Baylor has not given us the facts. We will learn the facts when this case goes to the courthouse, because there are victims who will sue the university. When the young women reported these crimes, the administration told them to remain silent.
The regents who hired Starr should be given pink slips and road maps. Ken Starr a scapegoat? No, he is guilty. He is part of the problem. He should have picked up the telephone and called the Waco Police Department and had those players arrested.
Wendell Franklin Wentz
Jesus’ love is for everyone
In regards to your editorial, “Searching souls as we decide how to vote,” I always appreciate an opinion that might make me a better man.
Salvation is a process. Yes, I walked the aisle at age 9 and gave my life to Jesus, but in truth, knew very little other than Jesus loved me and I believed he died for my 9-year-old’s sins and rose from the dead and one day I would be with him for eternity.
But what got me to the (baptismal) water was that Jesus loved me and gave his life for mine.
Throughout my life I have not acted as his witness or disciple, and for those I have offended, I am truly sorry. But if there could be one message I cling to, is that Jesus does love you and in his love, he can mold you into his image. But be prepared that it takes your lifetime for him to get you there.
Hopefully, I can wrap my selfish heart around the idea that Jesus’ love is for everyone who hears his call and responds.
I wish you would have written such an editorial (“Texas’ public education funding is constitutional, immoral”) when HB 5 passed, lowering standards for our students, especially low-income kids. No more 4X4, no more general requirement of advanced math and science courses, no more assessments of all students to show college readiness. Now, that’s immoral. Plus, with weakened accountability, Texas’ big academic gains for minority kids on the national assessment have come to an abrupt halt.
And what’s even more immoral is that the plaintiffs sought money to pay for getting students to college readiness when they and their allies had earlier eviscerated these very standards.
Do you know the whole story? Or are you just for spending more money? If the latter, I’d be glad to share with you the more than 200 studies that show that money without these and other sorts of improvement does not contribute to increased student achievement.
As a religious person, I share your concern that we must devote ourselves to helping those in need, especially through better education for disadvantaged kids. But, respectfully, I must share my concern about whether you have the needed facts to label only the other side in this case “immoral.”